Allowed

Usman Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC16 Feb 2022A.B.A./634/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand disposed of an application for anticipatory bail filed by Usman Ansari in a case of cheating, forgery, and cheque dishonour. The court granted bail subject to cooperation conditions and surrender within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to surrender within six weeks; enlarged on bail on furnishing Rs.25,000 bond with two sureties subject to cooperation and other conditions.

Usman Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand — Money Laundering | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.634 of 2022

¶2

------

¶3

Usman Ansari

¶4

The State of Jharkhand

¶5

.... .... …. Petitioner Versus

¶6

.... .... ....Opposite Party

¶7

------

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶9

For the Petitioner	: Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, Advocate
	: Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate
For the State	: Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Addl.P.P
For the Informant	: Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, Adv.

¶10

Order No.02 Dated- 16.02.2022

¶11

Heard the parties through video conferencing.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter within two weeks after resumption of the court in physical mode.

¶13

In view of personal undertaking given by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are ignored for the present.

¶14

Apprehending his arrest in connection with Bermo (Gandhinagar) P.S. Case No. 91 of 2021 (G.R. No.735 of 2021) instituted under Sections 406, 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail.

¶15

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner used to purchase coal from the firm of the informant and used to hire the vehicle from the informant to transport the coal and during the course of business a total sum of Rs.1,43, 84, 770/became due to be paid to the informant by the petitioner out of which Rs.77,75,622/- has been given to the informant by different companies but still Rs.66,09,148/- remains due and the petitioner undertook to pay the said amount and issued cheques for Rs.23 lakhs and promised to pay the rest amount of Rs.43,09,148/- by transferring the same through RTGS in the account of the informant but the cheques were dishonoured due to insufficient fund in the account.

¶16

It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false and at best the dispute between the parties is a civil dispute. It is further submitted that admittedly this is a case of series of business transactions between the

¶17

parties and there was admitted business relationship between the parties and there is also admission of payment of Rs.77,75,622/- by the petitioner to the informant. It is next submitted that there is no allegation of any dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner at the time of the entrustment of any amount. It is next submitted that the petitioner has made payment of Rs.23 lakhs in installments for which an agreement as well as money receipt has been issued by the informant, the copies of which have been annexed as Annexure-2 of this brief. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner is undertakes to co-operate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.

¶18

Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State being assisted by learned counsel for the informant oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

¶19

Considering the submissions of learned counsels and the facts and circumstances stated above, I am inclined to grant privileges of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court within six weeks from today and in the event of his arrest or surrendering, he will be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/(Twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned SDJM, Bermo at Tenughat in connection with Bermo (Gandhinagar) P.S. Case No. 91 of 2021 (G.R. No.735 of 2021) with the condition that he will co-operate with the investigation of the case and appear before the investigating officer as and when noticed by him and furnish his mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card with an undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the pendency of the case and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶20

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶21

Pappu/

Usman Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Usman Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gopal Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Afjal Quraishi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Reshma Khatoon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anjay Kumar Rai Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rahul Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Laxman Rajak Vs the State of Jharkhand